Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-02-11
PURE WINES.
Interesting Discussion on the COombs Pure
Wi te Bill.

PURE WINES.
Interesting Discussion on the Coombs Pure
Wi e Bill.
There was joint meeting last evening
of the Senate and Assembly Committees on
Viniculture and Viticulture, to discuss
Coombs' Assembly bill, No. 254 ito pre-
vent the sophlstication and adulteration OF
wine" C. A Wetmore, Chief Viticultural
Officer was present for the purpose of dis
cussing the merits of the bill and advo-
eating certain amendments agreed upon at
a late meeting in San Francisco of wine
merchants and wine-makers.
Mr. Wetmore argued that the definition
of pure wine, as given, was imperfect. He
also com atted Section 2, defining " dry
wines" which definition, he said, was not
correct. All sweet wines made in the East
or Europe are fortified with spirits other
than such as is produced from the grape.
lie thought the law should not force the
winemaker-whow wishes to market his wine
abroad-to fortify his wine with grape
spirits, when corn spirits being cheaper,
can be used to better advantage. Wines
manufactured for exclusively home con-
sumption might be fortified with grape
spirits, but in order to compete with Eastern
and foreign manufacturers we must use
cheaper fortifying element. Besides, peo-
pie in the East cannot be made to believe
that grape spirits are preferable to corn or
grain spirits. Fine champagnes are fortl-
fled by high grades of cognac with small
percentage of neutral spirits. Mr.. Wet
more proceeded TO explain the necessity
for fortifying our wines with low-prlced
spirits. in order to compete with imported
wines In France wines are not now fortl-
fed by brandy spirits. Prominent wine
exporting firms in California are opposed
to the principle embodied in Section ?.
They feel that all sentimentality should be
laid aside, and the question of wine making
and expectation considered from a CONNER
cial standpoint If the bill under discus
sion had been the law two years ago
the State would have lost million dollars,
as the crops were late and the grapes con-
tanned little or no sugar. He did not think
it right for the State to lay down the arbl-
trary rule that no man shall make wine in
any but the one way specified. 1t might as
well say that man shall not use chicory
in his coffee if he wants to. Very often
the grapes do not possess sufficient sugar,
and the maker must add some; yet, under
this bill, one would not be allowed to use
any sugar. Do not make 1t unlawful tor
man to do something that is strictly hon.
orable and recognized as commercial
right the world over.
Senator Rose admitted that there was
much force in Mr.. Wetmore's argument,
and vet it was desirable that Calitornians
should be able to say that their wines are
perfectly pure in contradistinction to those
made elsewhere. Large quantities OF I'M
ported cherry juice are now in the San
Francisco port, to be used i'll adulteraing
our native wines and deteriorating their
quality.
Mr.. Wetmore proceeded to discuss the
restrictive provisions of the bill, and argued
that they are impraciicable and injurious,
from a commercial standpoint, to the wine
interests of the State. He declared that 1t
would be useless to send strictly pure wines
East as they would there be mixed or
adulterated to suit the conveniences of
those engaged in the business. AS to the
provision for stamps Section 81, 1t was ut,
terly imperative. An Eastern man could
come to California, purchase all the pure
wine" and stamps he desired,
take them East and apply them
to any article of so-called wine he
pleased. Among the great dealers IN the
East the wine received from California in
casks is all dumped into large tanks and
merged into one article. Thus any par
ticular kind of California wine loses Its
identity. 1t would be futile for the State
to attempt to enforce any Stamp Act OF the
kind proposed.
Senator Rose thought it would do much
good. OF course, one class of dealers would
evade any law, but there are others that
would not.
Resuming, Mr.. Wetmore said that each
individual maker of wine can, without the
proposed law, protect his own brand OF
wine by trademark. The present law
gives him that protection.
Senator Rose said that firms in San Fran
cisco are steadily adulterating wines, and
argued that brandy could be used for fortify
ing purposes at less cost than is claimed.
If these firms were forced to use the pro-
duct Of the grape it would be still more in
the interest of the home producer. lie
believed that all the reputable dealers Ill
the East could be induced to cooperate
with the conscientious wine-makers of
California, for when the fact were once es-
tablished that absolutely pure wines were
offered for sale, and that they could be re-
lied upon, the demand would be greater
than it now is. The very mystery and
uncertainty that now surrounds the major
ity of wines offered in the East operates to
prevent the general demand that is so
much desired.
Il. B. Blowers contended that when it be-
came known in the East that absolutely
pure wines can be purchased in California,
with the seal of purity thereon, that will
be all that is necessary to at once establish
demand for pure California wines, that
will continue TO increase. If none but
pure wines are allowed 10 be sold in Cali
fornia, those wines will be sought for, and
the demand for pure article will warrant
Eastern dealers in handling it in preference
TO an adulterated or uncertain article.
Senator Rose said that his sales to East
ern parties are increasing, with the assur-
ance that the parties are getting pure and
reliable article; and he thought that the
protection afforded by State stamp would
operate to the benefit of all home wine
makers.
Mr. Wetmore was not of that opinion.
His experience had satisfied him that East
ern dealers would pay no attention to a
State stamp, which would afford legal pro-
lection only in this State.
Letters from N. NJ. Estee, A. Harazthy
II. A. Pellet and others were read, some
fayoring the bill in its entirety, and others
suggesting changes or notifications. Most
of the wine-growerS favored the general
provisions of the bill, while the wine mer-
chants opposed the measure. Mr.. Estee
said in bis letter that he thought the bill
would in the end benefit both the wine
maker and the wine merchant.
Mr.. Harszihy expressed the opinion that
the provisions of the bill were good, and if
anything too lenient.
The discussion over the merits of the bill
continued until midnight, without the
committee arriving at any definite conclu-
sion, except 10 vote that any bill to be re-
ported shall provide for the exclusion of
grain spirits from wine manufacture, also
sugar, except in the preparation of cham
payne